Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986902/ oceans_running_out_of_fish_as_undeclared_catches_a
dd_a_third_to_official_figures.html

Hurray for fish farms, I guess?

That's not news, people warned about that for at least a decade

I talked about this years ago, Fukashima has killed all the fish.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I talked about this years ago, Fukashima has killed all the fish.
is there any real evidence that the Fukashima disaster is responsible for this versus overfishing?

Ur kidding right?

Since it's a global problem, your claim is void unless you actually believe fukushima has irradiated the waters of the entire world, which is laughable. Especially considering that there were several nuke tests in places like the bikini-atoll (67 tests since 1945) and other places.

The planet is simply too full, more people => more fish consumption => more fishing => less fish.

Or something killed all the fish. Like a nuclear disaster in the ocean that has not been stopped.

http://enenews.com/category/location/japan


I know its hard for people here to accept the Fukishima disaster. Usually for the slow ones.

vnhrIGn4fOk

You really don't think overfishing (as the study states) is a problem?

Do you even watch your own videos? These tunas were still fished by fishermen, they weren't washed on the coast dead in masses or something, plus the vid says while there is a 10x higher radiation level than normal it's still nothing to be alarmed about. For your info everything sends out radiation that's normal for pretty much everything on the planet because of isotopes so 10x natural radiation is next to nothing.

And nobody argued that fukushima was a desaster, I wouldn't even doubt that in the sea area around fukushima you actually have dangerous levels of radiation in the local fish population but it's far away from being the cause for the entire worlds fish population to decrease...

Interesting.

So the oil companies do their best to cover up their dirty deeds, and what you think the nuclear ones are any different.

Do some research on Fukashima.

Its like people here have no clue..nuclear disasters are the worst things there is. Not only was this the worst, it still is dumping 500 tons of highly irradiated water into the ocean every day. If you think that is small fries, think again, this has been going on for years now.

Also I bet you didn't read this.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1212/ML12122A949.pdf

We are TERRIBLE stewards of planet earth.

I'm sure pollution has had an impact animal life however we over fish and find more efficient ways to slaughter sea life with no regard to our future other then a few $$.

This is one of the reasons I laugh at global warming, we will kill ourselves by pollution FAR faster then having climate change significantly impact our existance.

I love how whenever anyone talks about a nuclear coverup, its denied by the same people that are against oil and global warming.

Everyone here that has posted against saying nothing is going on are the same tree hugging liberals that say climate change and global warming are real issues. Funny they deny the worst of them all.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love how whenever anyone talks about a nuclear coverup, its denied by the same people that are against oil and global warming.

Everyone here that has posted against saying nothing is going on are the same tree hugging liberals that say climate change and global warming are real issues. Funny they deny the worst of them all. That's not what's happening. We all think Fukushima was terrible, and the Japanese government and the company ****ed up and tried to hide a lot. But you take a different, and very important environmental issue and pretend its down to Fukushima, when really there are much bigger factors, and that's just a bad thing do.

This reminds me of Ted Danson *that guy from the Cheers TV show* telling us that the oceans would be completely dead by the mid 90's and having full Liberal Science to back it up.

No. I aint linking. Google it your damn self.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ur kidding right?
No, but I'm hoping that you are.

How is some 1950s scifi movie plot conspiracy theory more plausible than overfishing being the root cause of fish depletion?

Yea yea. Fossils fuels are bad for the environment but tons of radiation is good for it.

Better idea since it's humanity's fault for both, why are we always trying to keep people from dying?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
This reminds me of Ted Danson *that guy from the Cheers TV show* telling us that the oceans would be completely dead by the mid 90's and having full Liberal Science to back it up.

No. I aint linking. Google it your damn self. Just admit it, you just don't have wifi in your red pick up truck in alabama.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea yea. Fossils fuels are bad for the environment but tons of radiation is good for it.

Better idea since it's humanity's fault for both, why are we always trying to keep people from dying?
What? No one's saying radiation is good. We're just all saying there's no reason to think that radiation is the main (or even a major) cause of the decline of fish populations, and that with regards to that problem overfishing is the great danger.

Try to recognize what people are telling you instead of rambling past it.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Just admit it, you just don't have wifi in your red pick up truck in alabama.


I would reply to this but My Red State Wifi is telling me this is full of BlueState Crap and that I shouldn't read it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What? No one's saying radiation is good. We're just all saying there's no reason to think that radiation is the main (or even a major) cause of the decline of fish populations, and that with regards to that problem overfishing is the great danger.

Try to recognize what people are telling you instead of rambling past it.

We will nevee agree.

Nor stop the snide remarks.

The interwebs ROCKS!

The ocean should grow a pair. Of fishes.

Or at least a pair of Fishsticks.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We will nevee agree.
You say that as if it's a matter of divergent opinions or point of views.

You simply don't have evidence to back your position, and you're ignoring the evidence that other people have offered here.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What? No one's saying radiation is good. We're just all saying there's no reason to think that radiation is the main (or even a major) cause of the decline of fish populations, and that with regards to that problem overfishing is the great danger.

Try to recognize what people are telling you instead of rambling past it.

Just comes off sounding like you really love all things having to do with radiation. Not cool man that stuff can make people super angry. Haven't you watched Star Wars? Anger makes you stab little kids.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just comes off sounding like you really love all things having to do with radiation. Not cool man that stuff can make people super angry. Haven't you watched Star Wars? Anger makes you stab little kids.

He's part of the NRC most likely.

Basically he's taking the side that dumping an endless supply of highly irradiated water into the ocean is not going to do anything.

Oh and yea there is this.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life

Do we really want sharks possibly exposed to ANY kind of radiation?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do we really want sharks possibly exposed to ANY kind of radiation?

Maybe they will mutate and come ashore after Omega in Miami.

No he probably has to worry about gators. There was that one movie called "Alligator" where a gator eats a child in his own swimming pool..it's pretty awesome. Er I mean tragic.

You only have to burn (fission) 0.01208 grams of Uranium-235, to generate 1000 megawatts. The energy density of Uranium puts fossil fuels to shame, and it doesn't poison our atmosphere with greenhouse gasses.

Radiation is a danger, but disasters like Fukashima and Chernobyl happened because of lax safety regimes.

Originally posted by Lucius
You only have to burn (fission) 0.01208 grams of Uranium-235, to generate 1000 megawatts. The energy density of Uranium puts fossil fuels to shame, and it doesn't poison our atmosphere with greenhouse gasses.

Radiation is a danger, but disasters like Fukashima and Chernobyl happened because of lax safety regimes.

Obviously, however when its constantly being pumped into the ocean at 500 tons of highly irradiated water a day, this happens.

http://www.naturalnews.com/ 049446_Pacific_Ocean_fisheries_Fukushima_radiation
.html

And the idea that its going to stop in the pacific is a pipe dream unless people think all the oceans are not connected. Radiation at this level does not just "go away." Because its in the ocean. Sure the ocean has ways of recovering from oil spills, this is something else entirely.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obviously, however when its constantly being pumped into the ocean at 500 tons of highly irradiated water a day, this happens.

http://www.naturalnews.com/ 049446_Pacific_Ocean_fisheries_Fukushima_radiation
.html

And the idea that its going to stop in the pacific is a pipe dream unless people think all the oceans are not connected. Radiation at this level does not just "go away." Because its in the ocean. Sure the ocean has ways of recovering from oil spills, this is something else entirely.

Yes of course, that's a very reputable website. I especially like the stuff on the secret bio projects to create human and animal hybrids.

Originally posted by Lucius
Yes of course, that's a very reputable website. I especially like the stuff on the secret bio projects to create human and animal hybrids.

You are right, Fukashima does nothing to the ocean..what side are you on exactly. You hate global warming yes, but you like nuclear, and the disasters??

Where exactly is all that highly irradiated water going then? Are they somehow getting it out?? And if so, how?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are right, Fukashima does nothing to the ocean..what side are you on exactly. You hate global warming yes, but you like nuclear, and the disasters??

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to claim that Japan is dumping five hundred tonnes of irradiated water into the ocean on a daily basis?

Where is it coming from? Why would Japan dump irradiated water into the ocean? Why isn't the world up in arms?

The water used to cool the fuel rods gets boiled away almost instantaneously. That's what happens when your burning something at several thousand kelvins.

Originally posted by Lucius
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to claim that Japan is dumping five hundred tonnes of irradiated water into the ocean on a daily basis?

Where is it coming from? Why would Japan dump irradiated water into the ocean? Why isn't the world up in arms?

The water used to cool the fuel rods gets boiled away almost instantaneously. That's what happens when your burning something at several thousand kelvins.

No they are not dumping it.

The high radioactive corium has burrowed deep down in the sea wall, there is nothing that can be done.

It cannot be removed.

http://enenews.com/japan-nuclear-expert-simply-impossible-remove-melted-fuel-fukushima-corium-spread-all-place-could-actually-gone-floor-containment-vessel-only-possible-outcome-cover-reactors-concrete-will-cen

Thanks Obama.

Interesting info huh Lucious..

The corium has ****ed everything.

Thank God we can still buy Uranium Core on Amazon.

I love talking about the corium, no one has any rebuttals about that when they actually find out the truth about the corium under the reactors that cannot be stopped.

Radioactive Corium..

And it now comes in both Cherry and Grape Flavor.

So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that?


I think he was referring to a new japanese radiation fishing techinique is all in regards to over fishing

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that?

Nice way of getting your way out of a corner.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that? Question from the ignorance.

Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?

Omega runs from tough questions.

Good one

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.

Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon?

Realizing that everything has a cycle of birth, life, death and that when we reach into that food chain and pull out resources then yes its very plausible to overfish, especially when we do it better then nature itself.

Generally when speaking of overfishing the first thought is commercial catches not all fish.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.

Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?

Japanese over "Fishing" of shark species just to for the fins to make soup is having a pretty good effect. Like other species going out of control with out this necessary predator keeping them in check. Like how jelly fish pops are spooging out of control.


NUKE THE JAPANESE BEFORE ThEY KILL US ALL!

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.

Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?

Large and expanding areas of the ocean have virtually no life. Some 25% of them are almost barren and those areas are growing roughly 15% every 10 years due to lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients in the water. A further 50% isn't really productive enough for fishing

Originally posted by jaden101
Large and expanding areas of the ocean have virtually no life. Some 25% of them are almost barren and those areas are growing roughly 15% every 10 years due to lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients in the water. A further 50% isn't really productive enough for fishing


A considerable amount of the ocean is just "desert." Just wanted to add that point, Jaden said it better though.